Quote from: John MorrowI've found that sometimes it helps to state the obvious because it's not obvious to everyone.  I get the impression that at least some people, if only Ryan Dancey himself, is drinking the Kool Aid that he's pitching and might actually believe it.

Perhaps, but if they're that foolish they're also likely foolish enough to believe that the trash they produce is true art- the Forge being a good case in point.

So for them, in a sad and sick way- the product will work.

Quote from: John MorrowI also honestly can't imagine most players deciding to die the way Ben did. He wasn't on the ropes or down to his last hit point.

I could, if the player fully understood the game world the way Ben did. Problem is, the approach suggested by Dancey requires the player to invent all that backstory in a split second, and then be able to enforce it so the dramatic impact isn't nullified by later improv.

I do agree with this

Quote from: gleichmanBoth statements miss the point that players will play what they enjoy at the level they enjoy it.

So, if Ben blowing up and taking Vader out is what that groups wants- so be it.

As long as the group says the outcome is okay, it's okay. But first of all, mechanics don't really ensure this: I've yet to see a Forge/Nar-type game which didn't have an escape clause one way or another that said: just because you spent the points (or whatever), that doesn't mean you can run roughshod over the preferences of the other players. Or in other words, trading narration authority around doesn't guarantee the game won't suck: the players need to be compatible.

Second, though related in a way, is that "cool from a story perspective" is going to have a lot of trouble winning out over most players' tendency to identify with their characters' interests, absent the prerequisites I outlined above. That is, either a solid backstory, or a guarantee that the improvised context for a player decision isn't going to be undercut later.

Ben deciding to sacrifice himself so that Luke can absorb his Force points, which is already defined in the rules: cool. Ben deciding to sacrifice himself because it's a cool idea, only to have the mechanics give narration rights next scene to some doofus who declares that the Millenium Falcon gets blown up before the gang can board: crap (pretty much).

Quote from: John MorrowWhich would bring us back to the idea that the quality of the game is dependent on the quality of the participants, not (or at least not as much as) the quality of the rules.

Cheetoism!
   "We game for the snacks. And also the dice. But mostly, just to hang out with friends and tell tall stories.

"Rpg books are just a bunch of guidelines for how to tell your tall stories, and give you a fair excuse to roll lots of dice and eat cheetos. To make your games more fun, talk to your group."
Roleplaying is a social creative hobby. The two go together. Not all creations are works of genius, nor should expect them to be. The difference between George Lucas' cool story and my lame story is that my lame story is mine. Parents don't put their kids' finger-paintings on the fridge because it really is a brilliant piece of art, and we don't say "let me tell you about my character..." because it really is a brilliant and fascinating character.

And then there's the social, which comes first - otherwise we'd sit at home playing computer games and writing. All this rubbish about storytelling and computers misses that point, that it's a social hobby. I don't get that when I'm reading Dancey or Edwards or Settembrini or any of those guys. I don't get the sense that they're gaing with anyone whose company they enjoy. TonyLB comes across as a bit daft sometimes, but at least you get the sense that he's actually gaming with people, when he describes something you can actually imagine a game group with him, different people. You don't get that with these other guys.

You've twisted John's point, Kyle.

EDIT: On second thought, maybe you're just emphasizing the wrong parts of Cheetoism.

People,

Star Wars IS a lame story.

Quote from: SettembriniPeople,

Star Wars IS a lame story.

Seconded!

It is?

How does it go?

With a limp.

Jesus, that was lightning fast.

Quote from: SettembriniPeople,

Star Wars IS a lame story.

Phew, I thought I was the only one thinking that....

New Update:  Time Out: Reflection

Quote from: Ryan DanceyI'm not trashing 4th Edition here.  That's not my point.  My point is "identify where the strategy has gone wrong".  Keep that in mind as you read.

First, go to the D&D Insider website and read this article (registration required):

Fighting a Dragon in 4th Edition

Now, go to the WoWWikki, and read this description of the tactics for defeating Onyxia in a lair raid:

Onyxia (tactics)

A bit of a change from the previous articles and directly poking holes at the new edition of D&D, rather than just evangelizing a new direction in tabletop games.  Interesting.

Quote from: SettembriniPeople,

Star Wars IS a lame story.

Excuse me for a moment, I'll just be over in the corner, dying inside.

Quote from: SettembriniPeople,

Star Wars IS a lame story.

That it may be... but it's a better story than what you'll get from an improv tabletop game.  It's better because as the story progresses you discover the story the author has already created for you.  

Like I said earlier:

Quote from: StuartThe greater a player's control over the game world (shared GMing) the less mystery, puzzles, secrets, suspense and problem solving challenges that world has for them.

Star Wars, or any other finished story (good or bad), has vastly greater potential for mystery, puzzles, secrets, and suspense (and perhaps problem solving in so much as the viewer is trying to solve the mystery / puzzles) than what you'll find in an improv storytelling game.

When you watch Star Wars you discover that Darth Vader is Luke's father -- and it changes how you think about everything that's happened in the story so far.  You realize that you could have interpreted  things differently if you'd know about them ahead of time.  This is a powerful literary and film making technique -- if you've ever watched The Crying Game or a film by M. Night Shyamalan without knowing the "secret" you know what I mean.

In an improv storytelling game you aren't discovering anything that changes your understanding of the story to that point -- it's simply something that's been arbitrarily added.

Edit:  A game example:

RPG
"If I'd only known there was a Grue behind that door my character never would have opened it!"

Storytelling Game
"I don't like that you decided to make a Grue behind the door when my character opened it."

Quote from: StuartRPG
"If I'd only known there was a Grue behind that door my character never would have opened it!"

Storytelling Game
"I don't like that you decided to make a Grue behind the door when my character opened it."

I understand that this distinction is at the core of the debate about so-called Narrativist Games (I think that's what the forge advocates call this).   There are pros and cons.  The pros to their approach has to do with the political effect of having shared ownership (as in "why should the GM be the only one allowed to control the back story?").  The political aspect is "Shared Power".  To some people this is very important, and even more important than whether or not the story is particularly good or whether or not they gain any surprises during the course of play.  Even these aspects though are not what I think of as the core of the converse style, which I think of as Traditionalist (but has been called GM Fiat, with derogatory intent).  The Con to the Narrativist Games are just as you say... I think they probably do mitigate surprise in the game, and reduce the possibility of puzzles, and mysteries.

The Traditionalist style of GM Story Ownership is simply a different game.  That's all.  It also has pros and cons.  The big Pro in my book is that as a Player you are exploring someone's World and having Adventures in it.  That's the main point to me.   You're not co-creating a story - you're exploring a World.  Narrativist Games don't really do that per se, though they may come with setting.  I think the breakdown works like this:

Narrativist Style:
Improv........|........................PreDefined

Traditional Style:
Improv........................|........PreDefined

Neither is all or nothing.  For example in Dogs in the Vineyard the GM does create back story for the towns, etc.   But during play the Stakes are defined by an interactive process that shapes quite a bit more than in the Traditionalist Game Style.   Or such is my impression having read the DitV Rules book, but not played the game.

The Cons, for me, of the Traditionalist style are directly proportional to its strengths.   You can get much more out of a World in the Traditionalist system, but it requires a GM who *has* a great World in mind.  Otherwise it's just dungeon crawling and that's fun but doesn't relate to how great the story is.   You can, yes, back into a "story" from dungeon crawling, but even if you wrote down the crawl, without more than just "We went to some dungeon and kicked in the first door on the first corridor and found ..." there's not *actually* much Story there.   On the other hand you have the possibility of much greater story in a Traditionalist Game in that the players don't know what's around the next corner, and do not have control over that aspect.  They can, however, have full control over what their characters decided to attempt.  

For me, the Traditionalist Pros outweigh its Cons only when the GM is a worthy World Weaver.   But these, as has been pointed out, are rare.   Does that mean that we should dump the game system?  Not in my opinion.  Or at least I would say that it is not "necessary" to do so.  What it means to me is that we should learn more about what makes a Great Story and learn to GM in such a way as to incorporate those concepts into our Worlds.   There's a lot to it, but that would be my preferred choice.  That's the big Con to the Traditionalist Style, imo.   Even so, I much prefer to make that work because as a Player I really do prefer to explore a Great World, so long as it is Great.

Quote from: VBWyrdeThe big Pro in my book is that as a Player you are exploring someone's World and having Adventures in it.

I think that Traditional RPGs are fundamentally about Exploration, whereas Storytelling games are about Building.

There's room for both types of games, and they can both can be highly enjoyable.  They're different types of game though, and I believe that ignoring this point is a serious mistake in tabletop game design.